Why should explaining history be left to historians?

Answer 1

I have marked this as a major edit and added the word fallacy to the end of the first contributors answer.

Historians Know how to approach history in an unbiased way and look at all the facts instead of leaning one way or another is a fallacy.

Historians themselves will admit to being biased. This bias comes out when they "analyze" events they write about. If they had no analysis or a bias to communicate then, as example, the character of say Augustus Caesar, would not be different in the hundreds and hundreds of history books on the first principate of Augustus. The motives of Julius Caesar and the motives of the senators that killed Caesar are subject to debate by historians.

Examples of this are monumental. During the Enlightenment in Europe historians who did not give enough credit to Divine Providence were derided.

There is a question among historians regarding the US Civil War. Some will put forth a case that based on their research, the War never would have been fought if both sides knew that the cost of lives was over 600,000 soldiers. Some will argue that a compromise would have been worked out.

Staying with the Civil War, some will say that General Grant pushed for Sherman's march to the sea in order to end the war as soon as possible. Other historians will say it was pure terror with no other motive.

Lincoln's first choice as the commander of the Army of the Potomac was fired because of his inaction, others will say the fact that General McClellan was against the war and therefore wanted to be replaced. McClellan later ran against Lincoln in the election of 1864 as the "peace" candidate.

There is a debate among historians as to why Jefferson Davis was not prosecuted for treason at the end of the Civil War. Their opinions are based on their own set of beliefs. The bottomline here is that historians as expected will explain historical events differently. Last example is my favorite. Karl Marx was biased against capitalism and wrote that all of history is based on economics. His explanations are critiqued in different ways based on the bias of another historian.

Answer 2

Historians are trained to critically analyze historical events, sources, and interpretations. They have the necessary skills to contextualize information, avoid biases, and present a balanced perspective. Leaving the explanation of history to historians helps ensure accuracy and depth in understanding the complexities of the past.